77 comments:

Her courage in the face of these vicious, slanderous attacks is awesome.

I know that I'd just get the hell out rather than face the loons.

Seldom watch Hannity because he is too stridently partisan. Watched last night just to listen to Palin.

For all of you voicing the party line: "She's great, but I wouldn't vote for her," why don't you try waiting to see how things develop?

Wait to see if she decides to be a candidate. She didn't declare last night. Wait to see how she actually performs in the primaries if she does run for president. Wait to see how she performs as a presidential candidate if she runs.

Why make the decision now?

Perhaps Obama will make an about face and become the second Bill Clinton.

Tangentially touching the thread's theme:Liberals become liberals because of their genetic makeup, see link, http://bit.ly/czNCQbRancorous and strident and shamelessThey parade on the political sceneAppearing to be utterly blameless –It’s their dopamine receptor gene.From Harvard and UC San DiegoThe truth is emerging at last;Libs get high on propping their egoPopping causes to give them a blast.

Liberals embrace dark and dangerous ideas to cope with an alien world. They are special needs people, and treated with care and compassion they may lead happy and productive lives. Yes, compassion! – When was the last time you hugged a liberal? We must recognize the reason behind liberals' pitiful Palin phobia and Trig birtherism; they covet Trig's position.

I'm not a huge Palin fan and have been on record here as such. But (and there's always a butt, is there not?) "milking it"? She was under the most underhanded, vile sort of guilt-by-association attack I've seen in a long time for no other reason than they don't like her. She responded well and, in the end, made them all look like fools.

I still don't think she's Presidential material, but I'm at least open-minded about it. Unlike those that jumped to all of their pre-arranged conclusions last week.

retread - So, Palin is dragged into this whole thing for polititical purposes and blamed for inciting a massacre and she's supposed to shut up about it.

Ahhh, that's it, isn't it? Shut up. How good Republicans are supposed to react to the masses of collectivists in the media baying for her blood (in an oh-so-civil way, of course).If she says nothing, then she's hiding something. Or she's heartless and just doesn't care about her obvious culpability and the collective guilt of those associated with her (we don't call you folks collectivists for nothing).

But if she has the temerity to point out, in public no less, that this is a witch hunt, then she's milking it. She's making it all about her, which is rich coming from the folks who couldn't care less about any of the victims of the shooting as they enthusiastically pinned the blame on Palin. That's all the left could talk about, tweet about, shriek about - Sarah Palin.

You folks have made this about her and now you're whinging about it - and no one can whinge as long or as loudly as a leftist, particularly when they have no reason to. And this is one of those times.

Immediately after the shootings, reporters called her demanding that she comment.

The fact is, as evidenced by their subsequent actions, the baying mob that is "the press" didn't need Sarah Palin to make a comment, they already had the story written. That's why the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" response to anything she does.

The media/left's (but I repeat myself)sole job since then is to keep the narrative created before anything was known about the killer shored up by stuffing any facts discerned later into that narrative.

They ignore what doesn't fit, distort what can be distorted enough to make it fit. Nothing else matters, because Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers are not people, they're political adversaries who threaten the collectivist establishment. They. Must. Be. Destroyed.

Jay. Is it remotely possible that she actually believes in patriotism? I realize that translates into jingoism to most on the left, but there are those of us that still believe our country is a special and exceptional place. I know, I know...that makes me an unintellectual dope not worthy of national discourse.

Yes Ann, Liberals are always on the attack and conservatives all always being victemize. (Rolling eyes.)

Palin's need to wrap herself up in the "Patriot" coat in this interview shows that she is a political scoundrel using the occasion to score points rather than raise the political debate. Obviously she does not want to raise the political debate because she could no longer use cheap calls to patriotism and her other schtick that suckers the Althouses of the world.

The "bullshit" interjection is right in line with the "bite me" and "kiss my ass" conservative talking points of the last week. The "I will not sit down and shut up" mentality is a race to the middle to appeal to the "common man." Except for Palin. She is already firmly embedded in the bedrock of mediocrity -- without even trying.

I can understand Ann's aversion to calls for raising the discourse. Doing so would be a threat to her blog.As we have seen over the last ten days, Ann must fight this at all cost. (Have you seen Ann dedicate so many posts in such a short period of time?)

Retread, obviously yuou are dumb. That is the current line from the Journallisters. So I will adapt it to bashing those with Palin Derangement Syndrome. Agreed that is wrong but admit that the Palin bashers are wrong.

A good leader tells the disillusioned and confused social group that there is a way to get from here to there...follow me! The last thing such a leader needs to say is 1) there is no worthy goal, or 2) I have no strong commitment myself to this. The hogwash coming in a flood from Retread and from the Media Circus since Loughner blew his gasket is a blatant demand that Sarah Palin say the #1 and #2 above, out of false guilt. But Palin's reloading and leading us on through this fog of disinformation has only strengthened her reputation as a leader.

"Retread the killer was a Bush hater just like you. Proud of your haters? Are you a 911 Truther like the killer"

That's a good description of Loughner. And look at the time frame when he developed his anti-government views -- 2006-2007. He was a big fan of that Zeitgeist film which received some lib awards. Interestingly, that's when his obsession with Giffords started too - 2007.

Of course, this was before Sarah Palin became nationally known, before the Tea Party - back when it was cool to be anti-government. When dissent was patriotic.

Now, it's patriotic to sit down, shut up, and let yourself be smeared by the government worshipping press. Now groups which engage in public dissent and voice their dissent by peaceful demonstrations and by -gasp- voting are demonized by representatives of their government and its lap dog press.

I'm undecided whether or not this is a good interview. There seems to be very little flow to it -- one question is not clearly connected to the next or the previous. Is Sean Hannity a good interviewer normally? It doesn't seem that way here. It's like he has a list of questions, somewhat connected, but doesn't know enough to hear what Palin says and then pursue a different question because of what she says. So she strays from his line of questions, and is always pulled back to it. That's distracting.

I don't like Palin's emphasis on the kid that died. But this kid first mentality is pretty pervasive in society and not at all unique to SP. But I notice it and it bugs me.

The unique and intellectually powerful idea that Palin represents is...

The end of the era in which white lower and middle class people are political untouchables.

For 50 years, the bottom line of leftist politics has been that white lower and middle class people are dangerous bigots who cannot be allowed to express their self-interest and have no right to political representation.

Every other group is granted free rein to prosecute its self-interest with a vengeance.

One of the unexpected outcomes of the election of Obama is that this political line has run out of gas. If a black is elected president, why continue to hand out all the swag to the Democrats cherished identity groups?

What, exactly, is the continuing rationale for declaring that lower and middle class whites are despicable bigots who have not rights to the swag?

Palin is the embodiment of this change. She is the representative of the political and economic interests of lower and middle class whites.

The invention of political correctness 20 years ago should have tipped it off. Aside from the fact that their nominations are decided by a bevy of party insiders and aristocracy, ie super delegates, and their historical chumminess with communist thugs, what else clued you in?

I watched the interview, and I thought it was fine. At first like a couple others I thought that "it's all about me," applied, but then I realized that 90% of the time, I do not watch what Sarah Palin is saying on her various TV shows, so probably she's not just "milking it" whatever it is, meaning she's not retooling the current topic and making it about her. She probably (hopefully) is talking in a way that's not about her. Point being, I shouldn't say that it is about her, when I don't know what else she's doing.

I can't believe that people are still saying that our coarse political discourse caused this. For myself, I usually just ignore and walk around something like this, some instance when I think people are wrong. But I understand that on this blog you just gotta go on and on about it, even though 97% of the people on it agree with you.

And yet, even though I a Democrat admit these failings, they don't help in the eyes of the critics. False words like "Democrat Party" which Rush probably started and made fashionable continue. Whoever it is that writes "Libtard" i usually avoid, but as it's often the first word of the comment, I can't skip over that. Someone said that if the Democrats or liberals just admit their mistakes it would be so much better. No. It's not. I do this a lot. Doesn't help a whit.

And then we get the blog owner's comment of bullshit. I know she means it to liven up the dialogue, I gleaned that from her dialogue with Glenn recently. I appreciate the idea (new and fresh perspective on free speech in the face of the massacre), but that comment just comes off mean. She's the owner of this blog for crying out loud! There are other sharp ways to get the point across without resorting to bullshit.

Palin is the most intellectually dynamic force in American politics for the past several decades.

Every time she speaks, the world stops. Her every word is analyzed.===============You confuse Palin being the next Jesse Jackson of the 80s. Always in the media, always getting a passionate response from reporters and detractors as a sort of "leader".Confusing the controversy of a Palin or Jackson with great intellectual wisdom.

*****************Madison Man - "I don't like Palin's emphasis on the kid that died. But this kid first mentality is pretty pervasive in society and not at all unique to SP. But I notice it and it bugs me."

Madison Man is observant. I cringed when Pelosi would trot out and say everything she did, was For The Children, The Children.The media does it all the time. 2,000 murders in a city can pass by as routine, but a child of a thug gets killed in a clash of gangs, and it is Stop The Presses Time.Palin tried reducing Tucson to being All About the Poor Child...more focus than on the 19 others shot put together. Wht? Her advisor team knew that like Obama's "Make your speech all about transforming it into a place the 9-year old "would have wanted", that an "All About the Child" message from Palin would work.

Is Sean Hannity a good interviewer normally? It doesn't seem that way here. It's like he has a list of questions, somewhat connected, but doesn't know enough to hear what Palin says and then pursue a different question because of what she says. So she strays from his line of questions, and is always pulled back to it. That's distracting.

@ Madison Man. I agree with your post.

Hannity is awful. It is like listening to a parrot, squawking the same stuff over and over. He is a terrible interviewer and we hardly ever watch his show because of that.

We watched a part of the interview but couldn't make it all the way through for several reasons. Hannity being Hannity. Palin, while doing a good job of getting her point out, was stifled by Hannity and it was repetitous.

Also the KID as the media focus of the terrible event is annoying to me as well. Yes..yes. yes.....it is very sad that a child was killed and all of her potential was wiped out by a madman. BUT....it shouldn't be the sole focus. They do it because it is easy. Whenever the media does this, I suspect them.....what else do the NOT want to talk about. Sheesh...there I go with those obsolete critical thinking skills.

Hannity, for all his success as a broadcaster (and good for him) is a horrible interviewer. He's not much better of a debator as he tends toward the broken record, shrill end of the spectrum. When I do happen to flip past his radio show, there's entirely too much allowed ass-kissing. Anathema to a radio guy.

Mark Levine is worse and supposedly they are good friends. Don't know if that means anything...

Rertread, you forgot AA's recent post about civility.http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/today-we-affirm-new-commitment-to-live.htmlYou fulfilled her prediction that liberal cry for civility whenever their lack of civility is exposed.LOL!

Lefties should be advised that S. Palin is not going to go away. And the smartest man in the world is going to be running against the dumbest woman in the world until she decides it is time for someone else to run against the smartest man in the world. And the smartest man in the world is going to have a foaming mad base that has compelled him to move again to the left to counter attack the dumbest woman in the world. But like all lefties the smartest man in the world will be fighting against the wrong opponent.

The only show on FOX News that I enjoyed was Brit Hume's. And now he's gone.

But they're the only fair and balanced game in town. You would think the others would wake-up to the concept of market share, but that assumes they're in it to profit when they are really just DNC propaganda whores.

Is Sean Hannity a good interviewer normally? It doesn't seem that way here. It's like he has a list of questions, somewhat connected, but doesn't know enough to hear what Palin says and then pursue a different question because of what she says. So she strays from his line of questions, and is always pulled back to it. That's distracting.

No. He's not a good interviewer.

I have noticed this phenomenon myself. He is almost totally incapable of coming up with "follow-up" questions. He stays strictly on-script, no matter what a guest says. But he's an idiot so it makes sense.

"48% of the country believe the use of a harsh rhetoric and violent metaphors by politicians and commentators caused the Arizona shooting. Only 32% believe they have no impact at all....54% believe the use of a harsh rhetoric and violent metaphors by politicians and commentators would cause a future incident similar to the shooting in Arizona."